John R. Lewis: A Role Model for Servant Leadership and Intentional Invitations

The year 2020 will certainly be remembered for the havoc that a coronavirus, COVID 19, wrought upon the systemic threads designed to allow our society to functionally mesh.  The pandemic has especially revealed how precarious is the mission to form a more perfect union.  Whenever times emphasize the need to address fairness in equity and systemic racism, ineffective leadership deferring to partisanship will block consensus building that could address social injustices and institutional failures.

Sadly, since April 2020, three giants of civil rights have passed. Yes, let’s greave Joseph Lowery, C. T. Vivian, and John Lewis but also accept that the loss resulting from their passing presents an opportunity. In their memory we are called upon to reflect, respect, and renew our goal of making better possible.

Despite death, John Robert Lewis urged each of us to answer the highest calling of our hearts and stand up for what we truly believe. His posthumous  Op-Ed simply added to his legacy.  Congressman John R. Lewis dedicated his life to protecting human rights and securing civil liberties. He was praised as "the conscience of the U.S. Congress.” The actions exemplified throughout his life modeled servant leadership, intentional invitations to optimize human potential, and the willingness to challenge the status quo through “Good Trouble.” Finding a way to get in the way through non-violent demonstration was a core belief and a foundational assumption.

The three basic assumptions of servant leadership are the leader is responsible for the followers, is responsible towards society and the disadvantaged, and the person who wants to help others does this best by leading them.  Listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth of people, and building community are essential attributes of the servant leader (Spear, 2002).  The primary motivation for the servant-leader is to serve first rather than to lead (Greenleaf, 1977). 

In most organizations, leadership is ascribed to people who hold management positions and prove capable of giving orders to other members of the organization (Senge, 1990).  By contrast, as a result of the primary desire to serve, the servant-leader wants to help his or her followers "grow healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants" (Greenleaf, 1977, pp 13-14).  While the desire to serve is the primary motivation of the servant-leader, the aspiration to lead is based on conscious choice to ensure other people's highest-priority needs are being served (Greenleaf, 1977).

Servant-leaders, such as John R. Lewis are value-led and character-driven. What differentiates servant-leaders is their deep desire to pursue a preferred future from “the basis of humility, empathy, compassion, and commitment to ethical behavior” (Lad & Luechauer, 1998, p. 64).  Servant leaders do not find service and leadership to be dichotomous choices.  Rather, they believe the concepts are so intertwined that they can be used interchangeably because, to them, leadership is about providing a service (Koshal, 2005). 

Proponents of servant leadership emphasize collaboration and integrity, whereby communication and persuasion skills become extremely important (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004).  Since a servant leader empowers others, helping them be and do their best (Hall, 1991), then decision-making processes involving stakeholders will typically result in consensus-building.  Since the servant leader's motivation is directed more at the personal growth of the follower, the servant leader's success gets measured by the extent to which the follower moves toward self-actualization (Maslow, 1970). 

From the perspective of this type of leader, the tenet of service adheres to key principles of servant leadership.  Leaders who lead an organization by focusing on their followers are servants first, whereby followers are the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral.  Servant leaders serve and lead with “(a) altruism, (b) empower followers, (c) act with humility, (d) exhibit love, (e) lead with service, (f) are trusting, and (g) are visionary to their followers” (Patterson, 2003, p. 5).

Considering John Lewis’s example of servant leadership for systemic change, it becomes easier to recognize the conceptual and empirical gaps between servant leadership and charismatic leadership theory (Tucker, 1968).  Too often, a leader’s charisma guides political movements. In such cases, this results in further polarization rather than consensus building because the leader’s desires, aspirations, and biases; rather than needs of followers, become the focus for decision-making.

According to Spencer (2006), trust and emotional intelligence must play a major role in servant-leadership.  Invitational Education (IE), as explicated by Purkey and Siegel (2013), provides similar expectations to guide today’s leaders through complex times (Burns & Martin, 2010).  Given IE Theory and Practice is grounded in social justice and high emotional intelligence, a servant leader would comfortably focus upon issues of social inclusion, mutual respect, care, equity, and justice.  The result would be inviting practices in all areas of systemic functioning that encourages people, policies, programs, and processes to be intentional, caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (I-CORT) in any place where optimal human potential and the attainment of the learning for all mission is desired (Anderson, 2017).

For a servant leader, implementing Invitational Education theory (Purkey & Novak, 2015) contributes to a climate respectful of human dignity and promoting collaboration in the school’s decision-making processes (Asbill & Gonzalez, 2000; Burns & Martin, 2010; Schmidt, 2007). An institution’s Five Ps: people, places, policies, programs, and processes, provides a framework for assessing inviting practices (Purkey & Novak, 2015; Purkey & Schmidt, 1996; Purkey & Siegel, 2003; Smith, 2005). Evaluating institutional climate based on IE theory provides a comprehensive design with the potential for optimizing success within today’s organizations (Burns & Martin, 2010). 

Through his final words, Congressman Lewis expected humble followers to accept the mantle of servant leadership. Fortunately, John Lewis provided a model for servant leadership and left us a full toolbox of effective strategies and non-violent approaches. His legacy provides proof that when leading with love, we invite others to reach their human potential.  Through servant leadership and leading with love we communicate the antithesis to hate-based systemic racism, thereby making better possible Thank you John Lewis, for proving that peace and humility exposes Grace and true leadership! 

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (July 31, 2020). John R. Lewis: A role model for servant leadership and

          intentional invitations. [Web log post] Retrieved from

          http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References

Anderson, C. J. (2017). Examining demonstrated emotional intelligence and

            perceptions of inviting schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice,

             23, 35-61.

Anderson, C.J. (May 31, 2020) Leading with love: Being culturally responsive

            requires addressing systemic racism. [Web log post] Retrieved from

            http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

Asbill, K. (1994). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of inviting principal

            practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Educational

            Management, New Mexico State University.

Asbill, K., & Gonzalez, M. L. (2000). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of

            inviting Principal practices. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 7(1),

            16-27. Retrieved from:

            http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv7n1.pdf

Brackett, M. A., & Katulak, N. A. (2007). Emotional intelligence in the classroom: Skill-

            based training for teachers and students. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.),

            Applying emotional intelligence: A practitioner's guide, 1-27. New York, NY:

            Psychology Press.

Bradberry, T. R, & Greaves, J., (2009) Emotional intelligence 2.0. San Diego, CA.

            TalentSmart. ISBN: 1441842233

Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A

            multi-level review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6),

                           606–632. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.006

 Burns, G., & Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the effectiveness of male and

                            female educational leaders who made use of the invitational leadership style

                            of leadership. Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice, 16, 29-55.

Egley, R. (2003). Invitational leadership: Does it make a difference? Journal of

            Invitational Theory & Practice, 9, 57-70.

Egley, R. J., & Jones, B. D. (2005). Can accountability be inviting? an assessment of

            administrators' professionally and personally inviting behaviors. Journal of

            Invitational Theory & Practice, 11, 71-84.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate

             power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press

Greenleaf, R. K. (1997). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: The Greenleaf

            Center (30).

Hobday-North, S., & Smith, K. (2014). Improving School Climate: The Essential Role

            of “Place” in Invitational Theory and Practice. Learn Teach, 7(2), 23–32.

            doi:10.7459/lt/7.2.03

Koshal, J.O., (2005). Servant leadership theory: Application of the construct of service

            in the context of Kenyan leaders and managers. Regent University: Servant

            Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved February 27, 2019 from

            http://gradworks.umi.com/31/88/3188226.html

Lad, L. J. and Luechauer, D. (1998). "On the path to servant-leadership." In L. Spears

            Insights on leadership: Service, spirit, and servant leadership. New York, NY:

            John Wiley

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:

            From   research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

            Curriculum Development. Retrieved from:

            http://marzanoresearch.com/products/catalog.aspx?product=13

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach

            to teaching, learning, and democratic practice (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

            Publishing Company. Retrieved from:           http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2^nd Ed)

            International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:

http://invitationaleducation.net/product/category/books

Purkey, W. W., Schmidt, J. J., & Novak, J. M. (2010). From conflict to conciliation: How

            to defuse difficult situations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. ISBN:

            9787452212104

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach           

            to professional and personal success. Atlanta, GA: Humanics. Retrieved from:

            http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Schmidt, J. J. (2004). Diversity and invitational theory and practice. Journal of Invitational

            Theory & Practice, 10, 27-46.

Schmidt, J. J. (2007). Elements of diversity in invitational practice and research. Journal

            of Invitational Theory & Practice, 13, 16-23.

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and

            application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,

            9(2), 57-64.

Senge, P. M. (1990, Fall). The leader's new work: building learning organizations, Sloan

            Management Review, 32(1), 7-24.

Spears, L. C., & Lawrence , M. (Eds.). (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for

            the 21st century. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Spencer, J. L. (2007). The new frontier of servant leadership. Paper presented at the Servant

            Leadership Research Roundtable, Regent University, School of Leadership Studies.

            Retrieved May 5, 2012 from

            http://regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2007/spencer.pdf

Stanley, P. H., Juhnke, G. A., & Purkey, W. W. (2004). Using an invitational theory of

            practice to create safe and successful schools. Journal of Counseling & Development,

            82(3), 302-309.

Zullig, K.J., Koopman, T., Patton, J., & Ubbes, V. (2010). School climate: Historical

            review, instrument development, & school assessment. Journal of

            Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(2), 139-152.

            doi.org/10.1177/0734282909344205  

Intentionally Inviting Diversity When Implementing Servant Leadership

The three basic assumptions of servant leadership are the leader is: Responsible for followers, responsive towards society and those who are disadvantaged, and seeks to help others best by effectively leading them.  Listening, empathizing, healing, and the ability to demonstrate awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community are the essential attributes of a servant leader (Spear, 2010).  By focusing on the less privileged, invitational and servant leaders exhibit service to their followers but also to society overall.  When leading with love we invite others to reach their human potential.

These attributes and assumptions make invitational and servant leadership natural models for working in the public sector but more problematic in the private sector.  In the private sector the needs of shareholders, customers, and market competition can skew the mission.  However, such potential conflicts can be mitigated with a clearly explicated vision.  Another challenge to servant leadership is in the leader’s belief that his followers want change.  The question of defining 'better' and who decides this level is a challenge to the implementation of Greenleaf’s theory advocating for a serving society.

Diversity is too often the basis for contention rather than community-building.  Gross (1999) posits the monotheistic religions usually are the worst offenders because of the tendency to display hostility toward different religious positions, thereby exhibiting a strong tendency toward xenophobia and ethnocentrism.  Therefore, diversity management is essential for developing an invitational or servant leader's personal attributes and roles.

Diversity Management is concerned with how we make decisions in situations where there are critical differences, similarities, and tensions (Thomas, 2005).  To help an organization in its journey towards diversity, Thomas posited the need to begin by considering three critical questions:

“What is a quality decision?”

“What constitutes significant differences, similarities, and tensions?”

“Where could we use “strategic diversity management?” (p. 103)

            A quality decision, Thomas (2019) contended, helps to accomplish three important goals: mission, vision, and strategy.  Understanding significant differences, similarities, and tensions requires the leader to willingly understand what mixture creates true diversity.  The leader must be concerned with race, gender, ethnicity, geographic origin, and religions to ascertain the level of organizational diversity that would promote fairness in equity, social justice, and cultural responsiveness while promoting sustained organizational growth and open-minded learning. 

Thomas cautioned we can’t tell just by looking at people. We must first specify which dimensions we consider significant. For every significant dimension, the first core question should be how different or similar are the members of the group?  Leaders must know the diversity they currently have and identify which dimensions are important.  Thereafter, servant leaders can utilize strategic diversity management to identify the potential gaps and then begin recruiting to fill them.

One reality of living in a flatter world is the requirement for leaders to have the ability to understand the global cultures and communities.  The Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research Program was a “network of 170 social scientists and management scholars from 61 cultures throughout the world, working in a coordinated long-term effort to examine the interrelationships between societal culture, organizational culture and practices, and organizational leadership.  The meta-goal of the GLOBE project was to develop an empirical theory to describe, understand, and predict the impact of cultural variables on leadership and organizational processes and the effectiveness of these processes” (House et al., 1998, p. 2).

When critiquing organizational behavior, leaders must account for the effects of social culture and diversity.  Given globalization of industrial organizations and increased inter-dependencies among nations, the need for better understanding of cultural influences on leadership and organizational practices is more important than ever.  "Situations that leaders and prospective-leaders must face are highly complex, constantly changing, and difficult to interpret.  More than ever before, managers of international firms face fierce and rapidly changing international competition” (House et al., 1998, p.5).

Previous empirical research (House, Wright, & Aditya, 1997) was cited by the GLOBE project as demonstrating variance in the expectations, roles, and status for leadership and being highly dependent upon the cultural forces in the countries in which the leaders are expected to function.  For instance, “Americans, Arabs, Asians, English, Eastern Europeans, French, Germans, Latin Americans, and Russians tend to glorify the concept of leadership and consider it reasonable to discuss leadership in the context of both the political and the organizational arenas.  People of the Netherlands and Scandinavia often have distinctly different views of leadership” (House et al., 1998, p. 4).

Both public and private organizations need to adjust to the implication of living in a flatter world resulting from a global economy.  Appreciation for cultural differences needs to move beyond cursory training in tolerance.  True culturally responsive education would embrace diverse languages, customs, religions, ethical perspectives, and historical truths; thereby allowing the tenets of servant and invitational leadership to take root within organizations dedicated to creating systemic behaviors that ensure fairness in equity, social justice, and cultural responsiveness while promoting sustained organizational growth and open-minded learning. 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (June 30, 2020) Intentionally inviting diversity when implementing

servant leadership. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant-leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Gross, R.M. (1999). Religious diversity: Some implications for monotheism.  Cross Currents,

            Fall 49(3). Retrieved from http://www.crosscurrents.org/gross.htm

House, R.J., et al (1998). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project Globe

Retrieved from http://www.thunderbird.edu/wwwfiles/sites/globe/pdf/process.pdf

Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring

leaders. The Journal of Virtues and Leadership v1:1, pp. 25-30. Retrieved from

https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/jvl/vol1_iss1/Spears_Final.pdf

Thomas, R. R. Jr. (2005). Building on the promise of diversity: How we can move to the

next level in our workplaces, our communities, and our society. Saranac Lake, NY:

            AMACOM. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=111449886

Thomas, R. R. Jr. (2019). How to practice strategic diversity management [Web log post]

Retrieved from

https://www.amanet.org/articles/how-to-practice-strategic-diversity-management-sdm/

Waldman D.A., de Luque, M.S., Washburn N., House, R.J., Adetoun, B., Barrasa, A., 

Bobina, M., Bodur, M., Chen, Y.J., Debbarma, S., Dorfman, P., Dzuvichu,

R.R.,  Evcimen, I., Fu, P., & Grachev, M. (2006). Cultural and leadership predictors

of corporate social responsibility values of top management: a GLOBE study of 15

 countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 823-837. 

Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1157834571).

Leading with Love: Being Culturally Responsive Requires Addressing Systemic Racism

Considered by many to be the father of the common school movement, Horace Mann believed the public education system should be “common in the highest sense, as the air and light were common; because it was not  only the cheapest but the best, not only accessible to all, but as a general rule, enjoyed by all” (Reese, 2005, p. 11).  By satisfying every students’ basic needs an effective teacher leader addresses the need for intrinsic motivation.  Thereafter, the school’s core beliefs and core values can promote capitalization of interest and relevance, providing realistic choices among tasks, teaching skills necessary for success, focusing on mastery, helping students set appropriate goals, providing appropriate feedback, limiting use of external constraints in teaching, and fostering relatedness in the classroom.

This is a perfect rationale for promoting culturally responsive teaching practices.  Teacher leaders need to advocate for the currently unheard voices of their students. A social justice mindset recognizes social conditions creating an opportunity gap are leading indicators in education and must be addressed if we ever want to truly mitigate the trailing indicator known as the achievement gap. To various extent, teacher preparation standards implicitly encourage culturally responsive teaching practices. For instance, a teacher may be expected to:

·         Connect disciplinary knowledge to other subject areas and to everyday life;

·         Link new ideas to familiar ideas: making connections to a student's experiences;

·         Use a student's thinking and experiences as a resource in planning instructional activities;

·         Understand how a student's learning is influenced by individual experiences, talents, and prior learning, as well as language, culture, family, and community values;

·         Understand how to recognize and deal with dehumanizing biases, discrimination, prejudices, and institutional and personal racism and sexism;

·         Understand cultural and community diversity, knowing how to learn about and incorporate a student's experiences, cultures, and community resources into instruction;

·         Know about community and cultural norms

For this discussion, it is crucial to recognize  Bloom’s taxonomy (1949) rates understanding and remembering as lower-order thinking skills (LOTS).  It is time for teacher candidates and practicing teachers to be able to evaluate systemic racism and actively create lessons that name, claim, and eliminate systemic racism by synthesizing community dynamics and best practices for promoting social justice.  Evaluating, creating, and synthesizing require higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). To promote high expectations, develop critical thinking skills, and achieve the learning for all mission, teachers should plan more HOTS rather than LOTS.

 The teaching force in the United States is mostly white and female.  This is true even in minority-based communities.  Regardless of race or composition of the community, it is time to expect all teachers to explicitly describe how they plan to bring multiple perspectives to subject matter discussions, including how they will attend to diverse student's personal, family, and community experiences and cultural norms.

Systemic racism impacts opportunities for inclusive educational practices and the over-representation of minority-populations endemic in special education.  As life-long learners, teachers need to become competent in developing effective instruction that includes modeling, practice, feedback, and reinforcement (Joyce & Showers, 2002).  In relation to addressing systemic racism, administrators need to support development of professional learning communities (PLC) designed to help teachers transition from providing LOTS to planning for HOTS.   Through effective collaboration, the PLC not only can examine school climate using the Five P structure based on Invitational Education theory (Schmidt, 2007) but create direct teaching that will address inequality and systemic racism.

Systemic inequality based on racism, the original sin of these United States, will not be adequately addressed by having one-month a year dedicated to a race’s history.  The 240-years old systems of oppression and culture of hate that began with acceptance or compromise of slavery by many of the Constitution’s Founding Fathers needs to be honestly discussed and openly addressed. “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but by the silence over that by the good people” (M.L. King Jr., 1963).

Racism is grounded in hate.  Therefore, when a society fails to address systemic racism it encourages hatred.  Where can teachers and ALL stakeholders begin? Use your voice and advocacy to lead with love!

Accept the following challenge:

Begin each day by reflecting upon how you will treat others the way you expect to be treated: With love! Further reflect upon the tenets of love, for instance as described in 1 COR 13:4-7: Love is patient and kind. Love is NOT prone to jealousy, pettiness, or anger. Love does NOT enjoy bad things. It does NOT exhibit rudeness, selfishness, or resentment.
 Love seeks the good within people and the truth in things. Love willingly invites forgiveness, trust, hope, and the desire to endure...

Then, commit to exhibiting these tenets throughout the balance of the day.  As in all things, you will not exhibit perfection. However, intentional planning to exhibit love-based actions today adds a concrete plan to your perfect goal.  The result will be YOU being more ready to communicate based on love.

When leading with love we invite others to reach their human potential.  We communicate the antithesis to hate-based systemic racism. We thereby make better possible.

Stay safe. Stay healthy. Be well.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (May 31, 2020) Leading with love: Being culturally responsive requires addressing systemic racism.

 [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Joyce, B.R. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development.

                Arlington, VA: ASCD. ISBN: 0871206749

Schmidt, J. J. (2007). Elements of diversity in invitational practice and research. Journal

                of Invitational Theory & Practice, 13, 16-23. Retrieved from:

                https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ791537.pdf